27 January 2015 by Published in: Battlefield preservation 1 comment

the_gray_comanches_lgAn article on the Graffiti House appeared in Saturday, January 24’s edition of the Culpeper Star Exponent.

The article discusses the fact that more soldier graffiti has been found at the Graffiti House. If you read the article, you will note that our old pal, Useless Joe McKinney, the president of the Friends of the Graffiti House–this should be the name of the organization, not the Brandy Station Foundation–never once mentions preserving the battlefield at Brandy Station. His sole focus is on the Graffiti House.

Please don’t get me wrong: the Graffiti House is an important artifact, and so is the writing on the walls. But this organization’s charter says that its purpose is: “The Foundation is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes, with the primary purpose of protecting the historic rural character of the Brandy Station area of Culpeper County, Virginia, as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation dated March 6, 1989.” That’s all well and good, but the reason why the BSF was founded was to serve as the steward of the Brandy Station battlefield. The Brandy Station Foundation was once a proud battlefield preservation organization that played an integral role in saving the battlefield. However, under Useless Joe’s tenure as president, the BSF went from being the primary battlefield preservation organization in the area to appeasing those who want to destroy the battlefield.

It is a fact that the BSF stepped aside and allowed a local landowner to begin to develop critical battlefield into an illegal pond. When the bulldozers began moving earth to dam up Flat Run, the BSF stood by and did nothing. Instead, it took concerted action by former board members–who are now not even permitted to join the organization as members–to take it upon themselves to save Fleetwood Hill. It is a fact that the BSF issued this loathsome statement when that happened:

The strategic goals of the Brandy Station Foundation include “Preserv[ing] and protect[ing] the Brandy Station and Kelly’s Ford Battlefields and related sites of historical significance for the appreciation and education of future generations.”

The Foundation does not support commercial or residential development on historic battlefield property, and in the past has opposed developers before governmental agencies and in the courts. This last occurred in 2005 when Golden Oaks, a development company, purchased eighteen acres on the western approach to Fleetwood Hill with the intent of subdividing the land and building a dozen dwellings. In that endeavor the Foundation was successful and the Golden Oaks tract is now protected.

However, in pursuing our goals, we are mindful that landowners have certain rights with regard to the property that they own. As a result, we believe that it is generally not productive to officially oppose common property improvements, particularly when those improvements are reversible. Also, we do not oppose landowners who conduct agricultural activities on battlefield property. We freely acknowledge that such improvements and agricultural actions may be contrary to the personal views of some of our members and supporters.

Frequently landowners are required to obtain permits before making improvements or undertaking certain agricultural activities. We view the permit process primarily as an issue between the landowner and the governmental agency exercising legal or regulatory authority over the matter. However, the Board of Directors is prepared to consider each matter individually, and to provide the Brandy Station Foundation’s official position to the appropriate governmental agency if warranted.

We of the Brandy Station Foundation believe that all people, even those whose opinions or actions we may disagree with, should be treated with courtesy and respect.

In other words, it’s more important to make nice-nice with those who choose to destroy the battlefield–so long as the damage done is “reversible”–than it is to protect the battlefield that the organization admittedly was charged with stewarding. And since that time, its primary focus has been on the Graffiti House, on ghost hunting, and on relic hunting on the battlefield and not on preserving the battlefield proper. Why not just change the name of your organization to what it should be: Friends of the Graffiti House, stop pretending to be a battlefield stewardship organization, and leave preservation of the battlefield to those who actually care about it?

The Don Troiani painting, “The Gray Comanches”, depicted above (to see a larger version, click on the image), represents the pivotal charge of the 35th Battalion Virginia Cavalry against the 6th New York Light Independent Battery that took place in Flat Run Valley, a battle venue that would have been destroyed by the planned recreational lake. In the background is Mount Pony, to the south, and the church steeple identifies the hamlet of Brandy Station. In other words, if the former board members had not stepped in–when BSF did not–this battleground would have been destroyed.

Is saving graffiti more important than saving real battlefield?

It is also a fact that the thwarting of the development of the illegal pond directly led to the purchase of the crest of Fleetwood Hill by the Civil War Preservation Trust last year. The BSF played no role in those events, other than by committing some of the very worst abrogation of its duty of stewardship imaginable. Instead, it felt that appeasing a wealthy landowner was more important than preserving the battlefield. For shame–the organization has gone from being the model battlefield preservation organization to the Friends of the Graffiti House with no interest at all in the battlefield it is supposed to protect.

How this corrupt organization still has any credibility at all is a complete mystery.

We’re still watching you, Useless Joe and the Board of Appeasers. We haven’t gone away.

Scridb filter


  1. Tue 27th Jan 2015 at 9:35 pm

    Of the entire BSF “policy statement” there is one passage that still stands out for its faulty logic:

    “We view the permit process primarily as an issue between the landowner and the governmental agency exercising legal or regulatory authority over the matter.”

    When you roll that sentence around, it is clear the writer felt there were three parties involved – the “people”, “government”, and “landowner.” And in this situation, the “people” had no reason to come between the “government” and “landowner.” There is simply no recognition that the “government” is… oh… heck… I’ll steal that line…. “of the people, by the people, for the people….”

    So is it NOT the duty… nay obligation… of a 501c3 organization (and thus recognized by the government for special purposes such as this) to work within its own charter (as you pointed out above) in conjunction with OUR government to ensure the objective is attained?

Comments are closed.

Copyright © Eric Wittenberg 2011, All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress